Raw Discussion 12th March 2012

[mickfan]

Yeah but who gives a shit what your Dad thinks? He's not going to buy Wrestlemania.

 

The Rock's stuff has been lame and boring and Cena's has been just as bad. Both men are just repeating the same points over and over each week with different "jokes" about cocks, bums and twitter. This fued could be so much more than it is.

 

Yeah but who gives a shit what your Dad thinks? He's not going to buy Wrestlemania.

 

The Rock's stuff has been lame and boring and Cena's has been just as bad. Both men are just repeating the same points over and over each week with different "jokes" about cocks, bums and twitter. This fued could be so much more than it is.

 

I give a shit what my Dad thinks, I'm sure as he's a casual fan who has previously bought WWE PPV's before Vince McMahon would care what he thinks cause thats his demographic. Also, why are you repearting yourself I didn't care what you said the first time.

 

How do you know that, exactly?

No-one who thinks something is shite spends

[ShortOrderCook]

They'll never have a headline roster that great again.

 

Why not? I bet plenty thought and said that before 98 too.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

The business has completely changed since then. There's no WCW for an Austin, Undertaker and a Triple H to toil in and debut on TV ready. They either come from abroad or come from FCW and they'll either lose patience with them, or beat them down until nobody gives a toss. There's never been a Austin or a Rock since, and there was only one other in the Vince McMahon ran WWF before they came along. To have two megastars, as well as a Foley, Undertaker and Triple H was unheard of and they havent been close to having a group of headliners like that since. I might be wrong, but I dont see it ever happening. The marks are now the wrestlers. They've even admitted that. Triple H even said as much in that promo with the Undertaker a few weeks ago.

 

This is the first era where the roster is being developed exclusively from the indy scene. The JBL, Benoit, Guerrero era has ended.

[Dirty Eddie]

The business has completely changed since then. There's no WCW for an Austin, Undertaker and a Triple H to toil in and debut on TV ready. They either come from abroad or come from FCW and they'll either lose patience with them, or beat them down until nobody gives a toss. There's never been a Austin or a Rock since, and there was only one other in the Vince McMahon ran WWF before they came along. To have two megastars, as well as a Foley, Undertaker and Triple H was unheard of and they havent been close to having a group of headliners like that since. I might be wrong, but I dont see it ever happening. The marks are now the wrestlers. They've even admitted that. Triple H even said as much in that promo with the Undertaker a few weeks ago.

 

This is the first era where the roster is being developed exclusively from the indy scene. The JBL, Benoit, Guerrero era has ended.

 

 

I really hope that Triple H is smart enough to realize that TNA is one of the few places that people can work in front of TV cameras and on live PPV to get experience, and he's smart enough to snap those guys up when they are ready and put them straight onto TV.

 

The Bobby Roode, Bully Ray, Austin Aries trio on Impact would be brilliant for Smackdown. James Storm could be a great upper-card face, Magnus is getting better all the time.

 

Hopefully the fact that TNA never "did a WCW" and kicked Vince's arse means that they won't punish any talent that they bring in from over there. They'd be silly to ignore the talent in TNA.

[ShortOrderCook]

Fair enough, that just seems a negative and narrow-minded view in my opinion. You never know what exactly might be on the horizon, this whole mentality people have that everything has been done in wrestling and there's nowhere really for it to go is such bollocks and so pessimestic. Wrestling has endless possibilities and that's one of the reasons it's so wonderful.

 

They have a wealth of talent at their disposal and absolutely shitloads of that talent has blatant massive potential that could yet to be realised. You never who might become bonafide, early on nobody thought Rock had it in him. He wasn't exactly well travelled, he had wrestling in his blood though, that's one thing he did have and there's a bunch of those lads about. Nobody ever expected someone like Mick Foley to be pushed or do big things in WWF. WWE, under Triple Hs influence had shown an openess to bring in other talents that haven't come through their own system, in Sin Cara and Kharma. Risky moves that haven't quite paid off but, there's whole universes (heh) of wrestling beyond WWE that has plenty of talent they may want to obtain in future. And when they have nothing for someone, they release them often encouraging them to get work elsewhere (in the world) and make them aware the door could be open to a return at a future date. These guys could gain top quality skills and experience in that time and return a whole new animal. A number of major stars of the past were plucked from a non-pro wrestling environment and groomed into pro-wrestlers and became megastars too. Most actually came from bodybuilding or football and fell into wrestling. Some had it bred into them their entire lives (plenty of those about still as mentioned). You never quite know who or what might crop up and what might capture the imagination of everyone.

 

Times have changed sure, there's nothing that tells me that can't have an even greater bunch of headliners in future.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Its not a negative attitude at all. Its an attitude drilled into me by the President of Talent (Triple H) who said talent is thin on the ground at the minute. The Undertaker and Triple H are the last of a great generation or whatever he said. It doesnt paint a pretty picture when the Undertaker, Bill Goldberg and the Rock (three of the biggest stars of the last boom period) said they wouldnt have even got into the business if MMA was around back then. Even Austin said he'd have considered it. MMA is the place where the American football players and amateur wrestlers go these days. Its a cold business, all through the spectrum. If thats what the big name players are telling the audience, what is the audience expected to think?

 

Third generation wrestlers and people in kickpads from the Indy's are the talent they bring up these days. Look at who they brought in in 1996 for "new young talent". Austin, Mankind, Vader, Marc Mero and Faarooq. They'd had years of TV wrestling under their belt. I agree with Eddie. WWE should be looking at TNA. Bobby Roode has more talent than 95% of the WWE roster. He's been ready since 2006.

[ShortOrderCook]

Of course those guys are going to say that now. That doesn't mean anything. Doesnt mean they'd have been any good at that either. MMA is hot now, sure, there's plenty of people who aspire to be a pro-wrestler too. And plenty of MMA guys who have expressed an interest in pro-wrestling once they're done with MMA.

 

Guys of the past almost always knock the present 'not like it was in my day!'. I don't think the problem lies in the talent so much as other factors. If Triple H is saying that, it wouldn't surprise me if that's a method of his to get guys to step up. Trips is going to inherent this thing and he's not someone to let it just diminish because his new lot aren't like his lot.

 

An amazing talent can pop up from anywhere.

[CleetusVanDamme]

CM Punk's match lost 888,000 viewers.

 

 

The sound must have been really loud this week.

[tiger_rick]

How do you know that, exactly?

No-one who thinks something is shite spends

[CurryAngel]

CM Punk's match lost 888,000 viewers.

.

 

I blame The Miz.

[HarmonicGenerator]

The headline stars issue isn't exclusive to wrestling by any means - it's how they adapt to it that needs to be the focus.

 

If you look at the film industry, there are very few actors who are on the 'headline' level of an Austin/Rock/Taker/Triple H in 1999. You could maybe say Will Smith, but other than him, there are very very few (if any) film stars who can sell a movie purely by being in it. In terms of big, tentpole/blockbuster films, you're going to see the brand or the visual effects, not the people in it - headline stars don't matter in 2012 like they used to. I'm pretty confident nobody calls Avatar 'that Sam Worthington film', and I'm fairly sure no fucker bought a ticket for a Transformers film because of Shia LaBeef. Likewise, Avengers Assemble isn't getting any business out of Chris Evans or Jeremy Renner being in it - it's because it's a Marvel film. Same with Renner and the new Bourne film - it's the Bourne brand that'll draw, even though he's not even playing Bourne. Ryan Gosling's almost at a level where you could sell a movie off him being in it, but at present he's the equivalent of a Dolph Ziggler or a Cody Rhodes rather than an Austin, Rock or even Foley.

 

Stage is slightly different, I suppose, with the live aspect (I can't imagine All New People being so successful minus Zach Braff's involvement, similarly, while Mark Rylance reviving his Shakespeare stuff is great for fans of his workrate, he wouldn't have had all his publicity without plonking Stephen Fry in as Malvolio) - but while theatre can sell names exclusively on the chance to see people live, the live revenue's just one aspect of what WWE's after - it's harder to equate that star value to weekly TV and monthly PPV on top of the live shows. Besides, the big West End shows - your Phantoms, Les Mises, Mamma Mias and so on - are again selling on their brand rather than who's in them. Ramin Karimloo might be a huge name if you're into musicals, but he's not going to pack Johnny Casual into your theatre. They want to see the Phantom, or Jean Valjean or whoever, no matter the actor (excluding the equivalent of nostalgia pops by casting guys like Alfie Boe in the roles). If you look at it from that way, WWE's doing what other forms of big entertainment are doing - you don't watch to see Kofi Kingston or Alberto Del Rio or CM Punk, you're watching to watch WWE. Only it doesn't work quite so well for WWE, because they have to keep that up week after week after week - WWE's format doesn't lend itself to a watch-it-once mindset. Double edged sword and that.

 

In terms of bringing in stars from the past to bump up buys and ratings and sales, again it's by no means just WWE doing it to get by. You've only got to look at the music industry in the last few years. The names that pack them in for live shows aren't the bright shiny new stars, because they're all boring and generic and iTunesy. If you look at the major festival headliners for the summer, you've got Springsteen, Petty, Sabbath, KISS, The Cure ... It's just like bringing in Michaels, Taker, Rock, Triple H and Jericho for WrestleMania. (It's not quite so true for album sales, but to sell a shitload of albums these days you've got to have either just died or be Adele, so I'll skirt over that). And music's going to face the same problems once the likes of U2, the Rolling Stones and Metallica decide to pack it in like REM (or HBK in WWE) did. Who are the big names left? The Killers as the biggest band in the world? They're fine at the bottom of the uppercard, but they're no [insert proper star name here]. It's just like WWE, and like WWE, it seems they're quite happy not to be looking for a solution at the moment.

 

And anyway, the major fests don't have to worry so much anyway - because again, like with films and theatre and WWE, you're paying to go to Download, or Reading or wherever, and there's a decent enough proportion of people who are going to go regardless of who's on the line-up (or who's wrestling who). You go because it's Download, like you go because it's WrestleMania. That might be why WWE works so hard on its branding compared to its stars - because in today's enviroment, the brand is the star. It'll all go tits up at some point, but if it gets you by (and gets you buys) for the moment, it'll do for now.

 

Possibly.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

This isnt a new thing though. The boom period ended 11 years ago. You'd have thought they'd have seen this coming. They had over 200 wrestlers to pick from when WCW went down in 2001. And if Hollywood gets a massive star, you dont have to worry about him getting sick as a chip with the road schedule and leaving when he's got enough money not to take the long days any more. Wrestling has had a history of killing the passion of its loyal servants. Its like Bret Hart's circus animal quote from years ago. There's millions of people around the world looking to get into acting as well. There a million different ways to learn your craft. In wrestling, there isnt anymore. You either pay Skinner a few quid to train you and dress you exactly the same as the other bloke on TV or you work for Ring of Honor and learn a load of bad habits and ironically end up being reprogrammed by Skinner in FCW. Thats not how wrestling's formular worked. Triple H is the biggest critic of how it is. He always says "I learned my craft in the back of the car travelling to the arenas". The developmental system should be done over completely, I think. They bring up the same people. Usually wearing kickpads. The athletes have never been better than they currently are, the wrestlers have probably never had their stuff laid out as well than they currently are. But the fundamentals arent half as good and the standout characters arent there anymore. Michael Cole and Vickie Guerrero are standout characters these days, which is dreadful.

 

On the music front, The Killers dont give a toss if REM jacks it in. But vince McMahon definitely cares if Shawn Michaels leaves. The Killers sell out venues and make a great living without REM. Justin Gabriel couldnt make a great living if John Cena suddenly retired. And the music industry will always have profitable stop gaps. There will always be a shit boy band flogging Calanders and singles. U2, Metallica and KISS are huge touring acts. You'd be better of comparing WWE to an individual band KISS or U2. Both tour the country, both rely on merchandise to create more revenue, both go on lucrative international tours. And both are pretty much precieved from another era. WWE is far from current in a lot of peoples minds. The Undertaker, Triple H and The Rock are one time deals these days. Even Cena to an extent. He's miles apart from the rest of the roster, but because he's there all the time, there is always going to be periods throughout the year where people will watch something else. Nobody goes to see KISS purely based on nostalgia alone. They have a loyal fanbase. WWE has a loyal fanbase as well, but the stars themselves dont have the fanbase the brand has (as you pointed out). Thats why there is such a revolving door these days. If you look at the starst they have created, the pattern doesnt paint a good picture either. Jeff Hardy was a massive star. He was knocking stripes of Rey Mysterio and John Cena at one point. Then he got sick and went home and never returned. Batista was a big ratings winner and a huge character they still havent filled the void of. He left because he didnt like it anymore. Brock Lesnar hated it and left. Goldberg could have been massive for them, but he left as well.

 

I remember reading years ago about Bob Sapp. When he left football, he joined the Power Plant. Which is what you did in the late 90s. Wrestling was where the payday was. Then about 2 years late Power Slam was saying "Sapp wont join WWE because he is making a living in Japan for K-1". I remember thinking 'why on earth would he turn down WWE?' He was the first in a long line of people finding a bigger payday. Jeff Hardy was probably the last person who caught fire and actually lived up to the billing. That was about four years ago. The rise of UFC has different hurt the business there. The larger than life characters are elsewhere these days. You only have to watch Raw to see who stands out. Cena, Rock, Undertaker, Triple H and Michaels just blow everyone else off the screen.

[Magnum]

To most of the audience, Rock wasnt entertaining for five seconds, though. They are always into his stuff. Cena isnt drawing that buyrate at WrestleMania with anyone else. The average person finds the Rock funny.

WWE best hope so. But the world's in a sorry state if that many people really are laughing at the fiftieth "ladyparts" and "Kung Pow Bitch" reference as they're watching it on telly.

 

You're talking about a world where hacks like Russell Howard and Michael McIntyre sell out arenas, and where there seems to be an insatiable international appetite for whatever formulaic shite Chuck Lorre has cobbled together this week. I generally think The Rock is very funny by wrestling standards even if some of his recent stuff has been poor, but either way nobody ever went broke underestimating the sophistication of the general public where humour is concerned.

[Slapnut]

CM Punk's match lost 888,000 viewers.

 

 

The sound must have been really loud this week.

 

Yet he's still the WWE Champion and in a very prominent role every week. So what?

 

Seriously, is this whole quarter hour ratings and who lost the most viewers nonsense still going on?

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Seriously, is this whole quarter hour ratings and who lost the most viewers nonsense still going on?

Stop crying. Ratings were the most reliable thing in the world when Diesel was the champion or when WCW died. Now its "nonsense", because its on an internet fav. 888,000 is terrible no matter how you look at it. That belts just a piece of tin anyway. The belt originally was a tool for the person who carried the house shows, PPVs and television to wear. Punk does none of those, so he can have the belt.